Paris (ots/PRNewswire) - Mangas Gaming, the leading French sports betting and online gaming group, owner of Betclic, announces that it is taking control of the Everest Gaming group. Mangas Gaming will hold 60% of Everest Gaming, with the remaining 40% held by its current shareholder GigaMedia, a company listed on the NASDAQ.
The French group, Mangas Gaming, co-controlled by Lov Group, Stephane Courbit's patrimonial holding company, and the Societe des Bains de Mer de Monaco, becomes one of the three leading European actors in online gaming company in Europe. Following consummation of this transaction, the group will own Betclic, the French leading player in online sports betting, and Everest Poker, two strong and complementary brands with a large European coverage.
Established over 12 years ago, Everest Gaming is one of the few companies in Europe operating under an in-house developed online poker proprietary technology. Everest's sites, well known all over Europe, offer their players a gambling experience that is tailored to the local market. Everest Gaming has a staff of about 250 people and, as Mangas Gaming, is very committed to responsible gaming and transactions security.
The French group Mangas Gaming, owner of the sports betting companies BetClic, Expekt and Bet-At-Home, run by Isabelle Parize, has now established itself as a leading player in all key segments of online gaming, with a balanced activity between sports betting, poker and casino. Everest Poker with the addition of the Betclic Poker liquidity will become the first poker community in France.
Isabelle Parize, CEO of Mangas Gaming, said "we are very proud that Everest is joining our group. It is a great company; it is a brand with an outstanding awareness in the world of poker, well known for its know-how, its platform reliability and its strict policies. Mangas Gaming is reinforcing its position as a major European player in both the online poker and sports betting."
Arthur Wang, CEO of GigaMedia, said "we were looking for a reference partner with complementary activities to ours. Our strategy is to participate in the growth of this innovative and dynamic industry in Europe. We are glad to do it alongside the French leading sports betting and online gaming group."
For this transaction, Mangas Gaming was advised by Lazard and the law firms Bredin Prat and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.
About Mangas Gaming
Mangas Gaming, the leading French sports betting and online gaming group directed by Isabelle Parize, is held equally by Lov Group and Societe des Bains de Mer (SBM). Mangas Gaming has a presence in more than 25 countries and, as determined at the end of November, had more than 4 million clients and a staff of more than 600.
Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2009
Sonntag, 8. November 2009
ECJ and Gambling: New referral from Austria
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2009 -
Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer
Case C-347/09
Questions referred:
1. (a) Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as, in principle, precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 14 et seq. and Paragraph 21 of the Austrian Law on Gaming (Glücksspielgesetz), under which
- a licence for lotteries (e.g. lotteries, electronic lotteries, etc.) may be granted to no more than one applicant for a period of up to 15 years, such applicant being required, inter alia, to be a capital company established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up nominal or share capital of at least EUR 109 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of federal taxation;
- a licence for casinos may be granted to no more than 12 applicants for a period of up to 15 years, such applicants being required, inter alia, to be public limited companies established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up share capital of EUR 22 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of taxation for the regional authorities?
These questions arise specifically against the following background: Casinos Austria AG holds all 12 casino licences, which were granted on 18 December 1991 for the maximum period of 15 years and which have since been extended without a public tendering procedure or notice.
(b) If so, can such legislation also be justified for reasons relating to the public interest in a restriction of betting activities if the licensees in a quasi-monopoly are themselves pursuing a policy of expansion of games of chance, and employing intensive advertising in order to do so?
(c) If so, must the referring court - in its examination of the proportionality of such legislation, which aims to prevent criminal offences by monitoring operators active in this sector and thereby steering gaming activities towards a regime in which they will be subject to checks - take account of the fact that the legislation also covers cross-border service providers who, in any event, are subject in the Member State of establishment to the strict conditions and checks associated with their licence?
2. Are the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the continuing responsibility, in principle, of the Member States for the regulation of criminal law, rules of a Member State's criminal law are nevertheless to be assessed by reference to Community law if they are liable to prohibit or impede the exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms?
3. (a) Is Article 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service provider's State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which those services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust?
(b) If so, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest in the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which a service provider is subject in the State in which he resides?
(c) If so, must consideration be given - when examining the proportionality of a Member State's rules imposing penalties for the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted in that Member State - to the fact that the regulatory interests upon which the State in which the services are provided relies in order to justify the restriction of the fundamental freedom are already sufficiently taken into account in the State of establishment in strict authorisation and supervision procedures?
(d) If so, must the referring court take account - in the context of its examination of the proportionality of such a restriction - of the fact that, in the State in which the service provider resides, the degree of control exercised by virtue of the provisions in question actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided?
(e) Moreover, does the principle of proportionality in the case of a prohibition - on pain of criminal penalties - of games of chance that is imposed for regulatory reasons, such as the protection of players and the fight against crime, require the referring court to make a distinction between providers who offer games of chance without any authorisation whatsoever, and those who are established and licensed in other Member States of the European Union and who conduct their activities in the exercise of their freedom to provide services?
(f) In the examination of the proportionality of a Member State's rules prohibiting the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted or authorisation given in that Member State, on pain of criminal penalties, must account be taken, lastly, of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to entry, it has not been possible for a provider of games of chance who is duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?
4. (a) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted in such a way that the temporary nature of the service provision precludes the service provider from equipping himself with a certain infrastructure (such as a server) in the host Member State without being deemed to be established in that Member State?
(b) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that a provision directed at support services within a Member State which prohibits them from facilitating the provision of services by a provider established in another Member State also amounts to a restriction of that service provider's freedom to provide services if the support services are established in the same Member State as some of the recipients of the service?
Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer
Case C-347/09
Questions referred:
1. (a) Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as, in principle, precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 14 et seq. and Paragraph 21 of the Austrian Law on Gaming (Glücksspielgesetz), under which
- a licence for lotteries (e.g. lotteries, electronic lotteries, etc.) may be granted to no more than one applicant for a period of up to 15 years, such applicant being required, inter alia, to be a capital company established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up nominal or share capital of at least EUR 109 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of federal taxation;
- a licence for casinos may be granted to no more than 12 applicants for a period of up to 15 years, such applicants being required, inter alia, to be public limited companies established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up share capital of EUR 22 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of taxation for the regional authorities?
These questions arise specifically against the following background: Casinos Austria AG holds all 12 casino licences, which were granted on 18 December 1991 for the maximum period of 15 years and which have since been extended without a public tendering procedure or notice.
(b) If so, can such legislation also be justified for reasons relating to the public interest in a restriction of betting activities if the licensees in a quasi-monopoly are themselves pursuing a policy of expansion of games of chance, and employing intensive advertising in order to do so?
(c) If so, must the referring court - in its examination of the proportionality of such legislation, which aims to prevent criminal offences by monitoring operators active in this sector and thereby steering gaming activities towards a regime in which they will be subject to checks - take account of the fact that the legislation also covers cross-border service providers who, in any event, are subject in the Member State of establishment to the strict conditions and checks associated with their licence?
2. Are the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the continuing responsibility, in principle, of the Member States for the regulation of criminal law, rules of a Member State's criminal law are nevertheless to be assessed by reference to Community law if they are liable to prohibit or impede the exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms?
3. (a) Is Article 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service provider's State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which those services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust?
(b) If so, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest in the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which a service provider is subject in the State in which he resides?
(c) If so, must consideration be given - when examining the proportionality of a Member State's rules imposing penalties for the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted in that Member State - to the fact that the regulatory interests upon which the State in which the services are provided relies in order to justify the restriction of the fundamental freedom are already sufficiently taken into account in the State of establishment in strict authorisation and supervision procedures?
(d) If so, must the referring court take account - in the context of its examination of the proportionality of such a restriction - of the fact that, in the State in which the service provider resides, the degree of control exercised by virtue of the provisions in question actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided?
(e) Moreover, does the principle of proportionality in the case of a prohibition - on pain of criminal penalties - of games of chance that is imposed for regulatory reasons, such as the protection of players and the fight against crime, require the referring court to make a distinction between providers who offer games of chance without any authorisation whatsoever, and those who are established and licensed in other Member States of the European Union and who conduct their activities in the exercise of their freedom to provide services?
(f) In the examination of the proportionality of a Member State's rules prohibiting the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted or authorisation given in that Member State, on pain of criminal penalties, must account be taken, lastly, of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to entry, it has not been possible for a provider of games of chance who is duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?
4. (a) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted in such a way that the temporary nature of the service provision precludes the service provider from equipping himself with a certain infrastructure (such as a server) in the host Member State without being deemed to be established in that Member State?
(b) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that a provision directed at support services within a Member State which prohibits them from facilitating the provision of services by a provider established in another Member State also amounts to a restriction of that service provider's freedom to provide services if the support services are established in the same Member State as some of the recipients of the service?
Samstag, 17. Oktober 2009
Coalition agreement in Schleswig-Holstein demands cancellation of the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling
by Martin Arendts, attorney-at-law
Kiel/Germany – According to the coalition agreement between the Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP), published on 17 October 2009, Schleswig-Holstein, one of the 16 German states (Länder), will cancel the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) and thereby end the state monopoly on gambling.
According to Jürgen Koppelin, leader of the Liberal Party Schleswig-Holstein, other German states might follow the example of Schleswig-Holstein. If the Germans states can not agree on a new uniform regulation, CDU and FDF announced to consider a licensing system. According to the coalition agreement, the now state-owned casinos in Schleswig-Holstein will also be privatised.
Originally, Schleswig-Holstein did not agree to the Interstate Treaty, but favoured an alternative model, a separate Interstate Treaty on Sport Betting, providing licenses to private bookmakers. Due to “fiscal reasons” the state finally ratified the Interstate treaty on Gambling in 2007.
Kiel/Germany – According to the coalition agreement between the Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP), published on 17 October 2009, Schleswig-Holstein, one of the 16 German states (Länder), will cancel the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) and thereby end the state monopoly on gambling.
According to Jürgen Koppelin, leader of the Liberal Party Schleswig-Holstein, other German states might follow the example of Schleswig-Holstein. If the Germans states can not agree on a new uniform regulation, CDU and FDF announced to consider a licensing system. According to the coalition agreement, the now state-owned casinos in Schleswig-Holstein will also be privatised.
Originally, Schleswig-Holstein did not agree to the Interstate Treaty, but favoured an alternative model, a separate Interstate Treaty on Sport Betting, providing licenses to private bookmakers. Due to “fiscal reasons” the state finally ratified the Interstate treaty on Gambling in 2007.
Dienstag, 6. Oktober 2009
Online gaming and betting: French MPs to decide over viability of French law
Brussels, 6 October 2009
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) re-iterates its concerns over some of the key provisions of the French draft law to be debated on 7, 8 and 9 October in the French National Assembly. Seven months after its notification to the European Commission, EGBA considers that the French proposal still conflicts with the EC Treaty.
“Several key restrictions in the draft do not serve any general interest purpose, whether consumer or public order protection” says Sigrid Ligne, Secretary General of the EGBA.
1. The opening of the horserace betting market limited to pool betting only: this restriction based on the sole justification that it is a “French tradition” will force incumbents to align their offer with the one of PMU. It will prevent them from offering fixed odds bets on horse races to French players, while this type of popular bets will be authorized for all other sports.
2. EU operators forced to cap their payback ratio to players, allegedly for the sake of limiting problem gaming: this will again force new entrants to erase one of their most competitive arguments. To date there is no evidence whatsoever of such allegation as confirmed by the European Commission. The average ratio (percentage of stakes paid back to players) is currently 75% for FDJ and 78% for PMU while online EU operators usually pay back 95% to players.
3. EU operators forced to establish an IT platform in France in order to provide data which could, in full transparency, be provided cross-border from their existing IT platforms. Such obligation would lead to duplications and create a clear operational and financial disadvantage for non-French operators.
4. The introduction of a “sports betting right” creates a worrying precedent in many ways. First, it grants sports entities ownership of information currently in the public domain (name and results of events or fixture lists) and also used by other professions such as journalists. Second, it will favour the most attractive competitions and sports federations at the expense of less visible sports. Third, most EU regulated operators already enforce early detection systems (such as the one of ESSA) at their own cost which allows them to block suspicious bets and alert in real time the relevant sports authorities.
These concerns also beg the question as to whether the French model will be workable and economically viable. “Ring fencing the French market goes against the cross-border nature of the Internet and would lead to the emergence of an underground and uncontrolled market where consumers would be deprived from any protection” added Sigrid Ligné.
press release of EGBA
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) re-iterates its concerns over some of the key provisions of the French draft law to be debated on 7, 8 and 9 October in the French National Assembly. Seven months after its notification to the European Commission, EGBA considers that the French proposal still conflicts with the EC Treaty.
“Several key restrictions in the draft do not serve any general interest purpose, whether consumer or public order protection” says Sigrid Ligne, Secretary General of the EGBA.
1. The opening of the horserace betting market limited to pool betting only: this restriction based on the sole justification that it is a “French tradition” will force incumbents to align their offer with the one of PMU. It will prevent them from offering fixed odds bets on horse races to French players, while this type of popular bets will be authorized for all other sports.
2. EU operators forced to cap their payback ratio to players, allegedly for the sake of limiting problem gaming: this will again force new entrants to erase one of their most competitive arguments. To date there is no evidence whatsoever of such allegation as confirmed by the European Commission. The average ratio (percentage of stakes paid back to players) is currently 75% for FDJ and 78% for PMU while online EU operators usually pay back 95% to players.
3. EU operators forced to establish an IT platform in France in order to provide data which could, in full transparency, be provided cross-border from their existing IT platforms. Such obligation would lead to duplications and create a clear operational and financial disadvantage for non-French operators.
4. The introduction of a “sports betting right” creates a worrying precedent in many ways. First, it grants sports entities ownership of information currently in the public domain (name and results of events or fixture lists) and also used by other professions such as journalists. Second, it will favour the most attractive competitions and sports federations at the expense of less visible sports. Third, most EU regulated operators already enforce early detection systems (such as the one of ESSA) at their own cost which allows them to block suspicious bets and alert in real time the relevant sports authorities.
These concerns also beg the question as to whether the French model will be workable and economically viable. “Ring fencing the French market goes against the cross-border nature of the Internet and would lead to the emergence of an underground and uncontrolled market where consumers would be deprived from any protection” added Sigrid Ligné.
press release of EGBA
Mittwoch, 16. September 2009
right2bet petition
The right2bet petition:
I hereby state my support for right2bet and their aim for all EU citizens to have the right to choose which EU licensed online betting provider they use, irrespective of which Member State they operate from.
I, the undersigned, wish to bring to your attention the following:
- I want the right to use the Internet to bet online across borders of all EU Member States.
- I want the right to use websites of EU licensed online gambling operators that give me more fun, better odds and better games.
- I do not want to have to go outside the EU to use sites which may be unlicensed and whose origins I know nothing about.
- I want you to take firm action against governments of EU Member States that will still not allow me (and other citizens of the EU) to exercise this freedom.
- I want to know that responsible gambling will be encouraged. I want to know that my children cannot access these sites.
- I want the Commission to take action against Member States that do not allow me to bet with EU-licensed operators that meet the highest standards in consumer and child protection, socially responsible gambling and crime prevention.
- I want you to take action to remove the existing barriers to EU consumers exercising their rights to purchase online services across EU Member States borders.
http://www.right2bet.net
I hereby state my support for right2bet and their aim for all EU citizens to have the right to choose which EU licensed online betting provider they use, irrespective of which Member State they operate from.
I, the undersigned, wish to bring to your attention the following:
- I want the right to use the Internet to bet online across borders of all EU Member States.
- I want the right to use websites of EU licensed online gambling operators that give me more fun, better odds and better games.
- I do not want to have to go outside the EU to use sites which may be unlicensed and whose origins I know nothing about.
- I want you to take firm action against governments of EU Member States that will still not allow me (and other citizens of the EU) to exercise this freedom.
- I want to know that responsible gambling will be encouraged. I want to know that my children cannot access these sites.
- I want the Commission to take action against Member States that do not allow me to bet with EU-licensed operators that meet the highest standards in consumer and child protection, socially responsible gambling and crime prevention.
- I want you to take action to remove the existing barriers to EU consumers exercising their rights to purchase online services across EU Member States borders.
http://www.right2bet.net
Dienstag, 8. September 2009
bwin / Santa Casa: ECJ delivers judgment in the bwin/Portuguese football league versus Santa Casa case
Today, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in a case involving bwin and the Portuguese football league versus the Portuguese monopolist Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Santa Casa). Santa Casa claimed that bwin´s sponsorship agreement with the Portuguese professional football league and accompanying advertising activities were illegal because of Santa Casa’s monopoly in providing on and offline lottery and betting services in Portugal.
According to the ECJ, the Portuguese monopoly on the Internet may comply with Community law under certain conditions, but restrictions imposed by a Member State “must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA: “Given the stringent anti-fraud regulations applicable to EU licensed operators which ensure a high level of integrity, transparency and traceability over online gaming transactions, we do not believe those conditions are met. Several jurisdictions in the EU already prove that it is possible to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and have a well regulated and competitive online gaming market at the same time.”
Today’s judgment must also be seen in the context of the increasing number of Member States that are now in the process of rethinking and redrafting their gaming legislation. As has been obvious for all other consumer markets before, none of the Member States currently drafting legislation has chosen a monopoly model to regulate this modern Internet based market.
press release of EGBA
According to the ECJ, the Portuguese monopoly on the Internet may comply with Community law under certain conditions, but restrictions imposed by a Member State “must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA: “Given the stringent anti-fraud regulations applicable to EU licensed operators which ensure a high level of integrity, transparency and traceability over online gaming transactions, we do not believe those conditions are met. Several jurisdictions in the EU already prove that it is possible to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and have a well regulated and competitive online gaming market at the same time.”
Today’s judgment must also be seen in the context of the increasing number of Member States that are now in the process of rethinking and redrafting their gaming legislation. As has been obvious for all other consumer markets before, none of the Member States currently drafting legislation has chosen a monopoly model to regulate this modern Internet based market.
press release of EGBA
Online gaming: ECJ rules in bwin v Santa Casa
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) today published its judgment in the preliminary ruling proceedings bwin and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional v the Portuguese monopoly Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa. In these proceedings, the ECJ assessed whether the Portuguese sports betting and lottery monopoly and its extension to include the internet is compliant with EU law.
In particular, the ECJ examined “whether the freedom to provide services precludes the Portuguese legislation in so far as the latter prohibits operators such as bwin, established in other Member States where they lawfully provide similar services, from offering games of chance via the internet in Portugal.” In its decision, the Court finds “that the Portuguese legislation constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.”
The Court also maintains “that restrictions on the freedom to provide services may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest. However, the Court notes that the restrictive measures that Member States may impose must satisfy certain conditions: they must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
The ECJ concludes that prohibiting private online gaming providers from offering games of chance via the internet is compatible with Community law. However, the Court overlooks the fact that respectable private online gaming providers such as bwin are just as able to control gaming in the internet as state monopolies.
Internet warrants greater security than brick-and-mortar gaming
Using this IT-based medium, highest security standards can be met to warrant customer protection and fraud control in particular. As founding member of the European Gaming and Betting Association, bwin helped develop the compulsory Code of Conduct for private online gaming providers. This Code stipulates strict controls which, given the transparency of the internet, have proven more efficient in the internet than in traditional brick-and-mortar gaming and, in particular, conclusively prevent any type of fraud. The European Sports Association, whose efforts also serve to prevent betting manipulation, has successfully been able to implement this.
Internet Gaming is Market Reality – It’s time for legislators to act
Today’s decision once again underscores that a modern regulation of online gaming is indispensable in order to protect consumers. Co-CEO Norbert Teufelberger comments on this ECJ decision: ”Internet legislation contains technical requirements and the Commission must be notified of these before they come into force. This was not done in the present case. As the national court did not consider the notification issue, the ECJ refrained from addressing the matter. It will therefore have to be resolved in the national proceedings. In so doing, the national court will surely go by the statements of Advocate General Bot who pointed out that no penalties could be imposed as no notification had been made.” And he added: ”A legal vacuum has emerged in the European gaming sector because of the rapid pace of technological progress. Among other things, this is borne out by over a dozen preliminary ruling proceedings still pending before the ECJ as well as numerous infringement proceedings against EU Member States which the European Commission has so far put on hold. As a transparent company listed at the stock exchange, it has therefore always been our ambition to change this situation as quickly as possible and to offer our line-up in a regulated environment governed by legal security.”
Co-CEO Manfred Bodner continues: “Online gaming has become a market reality. There is urgent need to develop a legal framework in tune with the times to warrant the interest of consumers, the state and operators. Court rulings will not be able to fill in for a regulation in the medium and long run.”
Norbert Teufelberger specifies: “Only a regulated online gaming market with a diversified and attractive line-up of games will provide adequate security against the risks of a black market which in fact not only opens up the floodgates to crime but also passes up on consumer protection. This is why a growing number of Member States, including Great Britain, Italy or France, have reacted. We are confident that Portugal will also set the course for an attractive regulated online gaming market.”
Background information on the ECJ proceedings bwin and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (LPFP) v the Portuguese monopoly Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML):
In August 2005, bwin signed a sponsoring agreement with LPFP for a period of four playing seasons. In view of Portuguese law, which grant SCML sole authority to negotiate sports bets, SCML filed a number of lawsuits, including infringement proceedings, against bwin and LPFP. An administrative penalty was imposed on bwin and LPFP and they lodged an appeal. The court entrusted with the case in Portugal referred a list of questions on the interpretation of the Portuguese gaming monopoly under EU law to the ECJ.
What are preliminary ruling proceedings?
The Court of Justice works together with all courts in the Member States. They are responsible for the application of Community law. To ensure the effective and consistent application of Community law and to prevent diverging interpretations, national courts can (and in some cases must) address the Court of Justice and request it to interpret Community law in order to verify compatibility of their national legislation with Community law. A preliminary ruling may also requested for verification of the validity of a Community act.
See http://curia.europa.eu
further inquiries
Press Officer
Kevin O'Neal
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-240 10
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: press@bwin.org
Investor Relations
Konrad Sveceny - Head of Investor Relations
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-200 17
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: investorrelations
In particular, the ECJ examined “whether the freedom to provide services precludes the Portuguese legislation in so far as the latter prohibits operators such as bwin, established in other Member States where they lawfully provide similar services, from offering games of chance via the internet in Portugal.” In its decision, the Court finds “that the Portuguese legislation constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.”
The Court also maintains “that restrictions on the freedom to provide services may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest. However, the Court notes that the restrictive measures that Member States may impose must satisfy certain conditions: they must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
The ECJ concludes that prohibiting private online gaming providers from offering games of chance via the internet is compatible with Community law. However, the Court overlooks the fact that respectable private online gaming providers such as bwin are just as able to control gaming in the internet as state monopolies.
Internet warrants greater security than brick-and-mortar gaming
Using this IT-based medium, highest security standards can be met to warrant customer protection and fraud control in particular. As founding member of the European Gaming and Betting Association, bwin helped develop the compulsory Code of Conduct for private online gaming providers. This Code stipulates strict controls which, given the transparency of the internet, have proven more efficient in the internet than in traditional brick-and-mortar gaming and, in particular, conclusively prevent any type of fraud. The European Sports Association, whose efforts also serve to prevent betting manipulation, has successfully been able to implement this.
Internet Gaming is Market Reality – It’s time for legislators to act
Today’s decision once again underscores that a modern regulation of online gaming is indispensable in order to protect consumers. Co-CEO Norbert Teufelberger comments on this ECJ decision: ”Internet legislation contains technical requirements and the Commission must be notified of these before they come into force. This was not done in the present case. As the national court did not consider the notification issue, the ECJ refrained from addressing the matter. It will therefore have to be resolved in the national proceedings. In so doing, the national court will surely go by the statements of Advocate General Bot who pointed out that no penalties could be imposed as no notification had been made.” And he added: ”A legal vacuum has emerged in the European gaming sector because of the rapid pace of technological progress. Among other things, this is borne out by over a dozen preliminary ruling proceedings still pending before the ECJ as well as numerous infringement proceedings against EU Member States which the European Commission has so far put on hold. As a transparent company listed at the stock exchange, it has therefore always been our ambition to change this situation as quickly as possible and to offer our line-up in a regulated environment governed by legal security.”
Co-CEO Manfred Bodner continues: “Online gaming has become a market reality. There is urgent need to develop a legal framework in tune with the times to warrant the interest of consumers, the state and operators. Court rulings will not be able to fill in for a regulation in the medium and long run.”
Norbert Teufelberger specifies: “Only a regulated online gaming market with a diversified and attractive line-up of games will provide adequate security against the risks of a black market which in fact not only opens up the floodgates to crime but also passes up on consumer protection. This is why a growing number of Member States, including Great Britain, Italy or France, have reacted. We are confident that Portugal will also set the course for an attractive regulated online gaming market.”
Background information on the ECJ proceedings bwin and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (LPFP) v the Portuguese monopoly Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML):
In August 2005, bwin signed a sponsoring agreement with LPFP for a period of four playing seasons. In view of Portuguese law, which grant SCML sole authority to negotiate sports bets, SCML filed a number of lawsuits, including infringement proceedings, against bwin and LPFP. An administrative penalty was imposed on bwin and LPFP and they lodged an appeal. The court entrusted with the case in Portugal referred a list of questions on the interpretation of the Portuguese gaming monopoly under EU law to the ECJ.
What are preliminary ruling proceedings?
The Court of Justice works together with all courts in the Member States. They are responsible for the application of Community law. To ensure the effective and consistent application of Community law and to prevent diverging interpretations, national courts can (and in some cases must) address the Court of Justice and request it to interpret Community law in order to verify compatibility of their national legislation with Community law. A preliminary ruling may also requested for verification of the validity of a Community act.
See http://curia.europa.eu
further inquiries
Press Officer
Kevin O'Neal
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-240 10
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: press@bwin.org
Investor Relations
Konrad Sveceny - Head of Investor Relations
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-200 17
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: investorrelations
Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009
Gambling: EJC to decide on disparate taxation of different forms of gambling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 11 February 2009 - Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
(Case C-58/09)
Referring court
Bundesfinanzhof
Parties to the main proceedings
Claimant: Leo-Libera GmbH
Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
Question referred
Is Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC 1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted to have a rule under which only specified forms of (race) betting and lotteries are exempt from tax, and all 'other forms of gambling' are excluded from the tax exemption?
____________
1 - OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
(Case C-58/09)
Referring court
Bundesfinanzhof
Parties to the main proceedings
Claimant: Leo-Libera GmbH
Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
Question referred
Is Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC 1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted to have a rule under which only specified forms of (race) betting and lotteries are exempt from tax, and all 'other forms of gambling' are excluded from the tax exemption?
____________
1 - OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
European Parliament: No political support for an EU harmonised legislation for online gaming and betting
Press relesa of EGBA
Today’s adoption of an own initiative report by the European Parliament on “The integrity of online gambling” is overshadowed by the support of a wide range of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to an alternative report.
The alternative report was backed by MEPs representing at least 9 Member States and the three main European political parties. It seeks to approach online gaming and betting in a more practical way, in line with the cross-border nature of the sector and taking into consideration both the challenges and opportunities offered in this area by the Internet technology.
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes this alternative report, which reflects an important move within the European Parliament towards more workable solutions.
The confusing majority report lead by Danish socialist MEP Schaldemose, indeed calls on the Commission to “carry out studies and make appropriate proposals” while insisting at the same time on “the Member States right to regulate (the online gaming sector) in accordance with their traditions and cultures”. This report being split between a national or a community approach, therefore fails to make any clear recommendation on actions to be taken.
What is clear however is that no harmonised EU legislation is foreseeable in the near future due to lack of political will of both Member States and the European Parliament. This was first evidenced by the discussions within the Council initiated recently by the French Presidency and now by clear divisions amongst MEPs expressed in the context of the own initiative report.
So what’s next?
The establishment of a European Code of Conduct, supported by the alternative report, currently appears as the best practical option in the near future to ensure that EU licensed operators offering their services cross-border abide throughout the EU to a common and consistent set of responsible standards.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA said “Today’s vote shows that we cannot expect an EU harmonised legislation to be adopted in the near future. This clearly means that it is the rules of the Treaty and the case law of the Court of Justice that continue to apply and that will prevail for our sector in the years to come”.
The only tangible EU initiatives in the pipeline to enforce the right of EU operators to a non-discriminatory market access are the current infringements which were launchedby the Commission some years ago. These infringements need now urgently to be brought to the next level with all non-cooperative Member States including Germany, Sweden or Denmark.
Today’s adoption of an own initiative report by the European Parliament on “The integrity of online gambling” is overshadowed by the support of a wide range of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to an alternative report.
The alternative report was backed by MEPs representing at least 9 Member States and the three main European political parties. It seeks to approach online gaming and betting in a more practical way, in line with the cross-border nature of the sector and taking into consideration both the challenges and opportunities offered in this area by the Internet technology.
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes this alternative report, which reflects an important move within the European Parliament towards more workable solutions.
The confusing majority report lead by Danish socialist MEP Schaldemose, indeed calls on the Commission to “carry out studies and make appropriate proposals” while insisting at the same time on “the Member States right to regulate (the online gaming sector) in accordance with their traditions and cultures”. This report being split between a national or a community approach, therefore fails to make any clear recommendation on actions to be taken.
What is clear however is that no harmonised EU legislation is foreseeable in the near future due to lack of political will of both Member States and the European Parliament. This was first evidenced by the discussions within the Council initiated recently by the French Presidency and now by clear divisions amongst MEPs expressed in the context of the own initiative report.
So what’s next?
The establishment of a European Code of Conduct, supported by the alternative report, currently appears as the best practical option in the near future to ensure that EU licensed operators offering their services cross-border abide throughout the EU to a common and consistent set of responsible standards.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA said “Today’s vote shows that we cannot expect an EU harmonised legislation to be adopted in the near future. This clearly means that it is the rules of the Treaty and the case law of the Court of Justice that continue to apply and that will prevail for our sector in the years to come”.
The only tangible EU initiatives in the pipeline to enforce the right of EU operators to a non-discriminatory market access are the current infringements which were launchedby the Commission some years ago. These infringements need now urgently to be brought to the next level with all non-cooperative Member States including Germany, Sweden or Denmark.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)